While most progressive think tanks acquire their funding through many different sources, for conservative think tanks financing by corporations prevails. Among the think tanks receiving a considerable amount of corporate money are the Cato Institute (U.S. conservative/libertarian), the Brookings Institution (U.S. centrist), the Heritage Foundation (U.S. conservative), the American Enterprise Institute (U.S. conservative) and the
Also, whereas the combined revenue base of such conservative multi-issue policy institutions as the Heritage Foundation, the American Enterprise Institute, Free Congress Research and Education Foundation, the Cato Institute, and
TEXTBLOCK 1/3 // URL: http://world-information.org/wio/infostructure/100437611704/100438658391
Think tanks undertake research in very specific public policy areas. Which topics they cover mainly depends on their political and ideological orientation. In any case think tanks produce incredible amounts of "research findings". The crucial aspect usually is not their production, but their distribution. Therefore most think tanks have developed sophisticated dissemination strategies, whose main aim is the communication of their ideas to important audiences. These include members of governmental institutions, policymakers in the executive branch, news media, intellectuals, business men as well as academic and policy communities - in short, everybody, who is involved in shaping public opinion.
TEXTBLOCK 2/3 // URL: http://world-information.org/wio/infostructure/100437611704/100438658193
Here the keys for encryption and decryption differ. There needs to exist a private key, which is only known to the individual, and a public key, which is published. Every person has her or his own private key that is never published. It is used for decrypting only. Mathematically the different keys are linked to each other, still it is nearly impossible to derive the private key from the public one.
For sending a message to someone, one has to look up the other's public key and encrypt the message with it. The keyholder will use his/her private key to decrypt it. While everybody can send a message with the public key, the private key absolutely has to stay secret - and probably will.
"The best system is to use a simple, well understood algorithm which relies on the security of a key rather than the algorithm itself. This means if anybody steals a key, you could just roll another and they have to start all over." (Andrew Carol)
very famous examples for public-key systems are:
· RSA:
The RSA is probably one of the most popular public-key cryptosystems. With the help of RSA, messages can be encrypted, but also digital signatures are provided.
The mathematics behind are supposedly quite easy to understand (see:
· PGP:
PGP is a public key encryption program. Most of all it is used for e-mail encryption.
It is supposed to be quite safe - until now.
· PGPi is simply the international variation of PGP.
for further information about the RSA and other key-systems visit the RSA homepage:
or:
All of those tools, like hash functions, too, can help to enhance security and prevent crime.
They can theoretically, but sometimes they do not, as the example of the published credit card key of France in March 2000 showed.
For more information see:
Still, cryptography can help privacy.
On the other hand cryptography is only one element to assure safe transport of data. It is especially the persons using it who have to pay attention. A key that is told to others or a lost cryptographic key are the end of secrecy.
TEXTBLOCK 3/3 // URL: http://world-information.org/wio/infostructure/100437611776/100438659074
Founded by Bill Gates and Paul Allen and headquartered in Redmond, USA, Microsoft Corporation is today's world-leading developer of personal-computer software systems and applications. As MS-DOS, the first operating system released by Microsoft, before, Windows, its successor, has become the de-facto standard operating system for personal computer. According to critics and following a recent court ruling this is due to unfair competition.
For more detailed information see the Encyclopaedia Britannica: